Version 2 (modified by mathiot, 7 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?

Author : Mathiot

ticket : #1331

Branch : dev_r4650_UKMO2_ice_shelves


Dynamics for the top layer beneath the ice shelves:

  • top partial step
  • top friction (same option as for the bottom friction)
  • Correction of the divergence locally (as for runoff fresh water flux)

Thermodynamics used to compute the melt rate:

  • ISOMIP formulation (2 equation formulation)
  • 3 equation formulation (Jenkins et al. 1991)
  • Forcing mode (prescribed melt rate) is available.
  • Losh top boundary layer (Losch et al., 2008)

Validation configuration: ISOMIP

ISOMIP is a closed rectangular basin of uniform depth 900 m, spanning 15° of longitude, and latitudes 80° South to 70° South. The whole basin is covered with an ice shelf, with the ice draft rising linearly from 700 m at 80° South to 200 m at 76° South, and remaining constant at 200 m from 76° South to 70° South. The geometry is uniform in the east-west direction. All the model setup and geometry is fully described in J.R. Hunter, 2006.


  • Hunter, J.R.: Specification for test models of ice shelf cavities, technical report, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research centre, version 7, 2006.
  • Jenkins, A., Hellmer, H.H. and D.H. Holland: The Role of Meltwater Advection in the Formulation of Conservative Boundary Conditions at an Ice–Ocean Interface, Journal of physical oceanography, 31, 2001.
  • Losch, M. Modeling ice shelf cavities in a z coordinate ocean general circulation model Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 2008, 113


  • System reviewer: Andrew Coward
  • Science reviewer: Gurvan Madec


Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK].

NVTK Tested'''YES/NO'''
Other model configurations'''YES/NO'''
Processor configurations tested[ Enter processor configs tested here ]
If adding new functionality please confirm that the
New code doesn't change results when it is switched off
and ''works'' when switched on

(Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.)

'Please add further summary details here'

  • Processor configurations tested
  • etc——

Bit Comparability

Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?'''YES/NO '''
Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''

If you answered '''NO''' to any of the above, please provide further details:

  • Which routine(s) are causing the difference?
  • Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version
  • What is needed to achieve regression with the previous model release (e.g. a regression branch, hand-edits etc). If this is not possible, explain why not.
  • What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs?
  • Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here……..

System Changes

Does your change alter namelists?'''YES/NO '''
Does your change require a change in compiler options?'''YES/NO '''

If any of these apply, please document the changes required here…….


''Please ''summarize'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change……''

IPR issues

Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?'''YES/ NO '''

If No:

  • Identify the collaboration agreement details
  • Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution? etc).Add further details here if required……….